Shanahan Extended for 6 Years

[louisstamos]

https://twitter.com/MapleLeafs/status/1128396032214216706

 

[Kin]

I don't have any issue with the job he's doing but to me this says more about the weird ownership structure than anything.

 

[Highlander]

I think we are extremely fortunate to have him. I like his style, haircut good too! Let the Suites give him autonomy and let him run the ship...in other words get out of his way and sign the checks when he gives you a bill.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Yup good job and he's really changed the atmosphere around the Leafs. Have to give credit to the suits for hiring him in the first place. He just had a good interview on Overdrive as well. One thing he said was that they still consider this to be early in the process and that the team doesn't have enough scar tissue yet. They also talked with Marner's agent today, all positive. Leafs are in good hands.

 

[Zee]

I approve

 

[herman]

Shanahan sat down with Tim and Sid to discuss his new extension and some current events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlPpiGgoyU

 

[Deebo]

I don't have any issue with the job he's doing but to me this says more about the weird ownership structure than anything.

What do you think it says about the ownership structure?

 

[Kin]

What do you think it says about the ownership structure?

Well, it isn't news or anything but it is pretty god dang weird that the team is owned by two giant corporations who are each others biggest direct competitors. I think it's pretty safe to say that the only way to make something like work is to manage the organization in a pretty conservative, anodyne way and retaining Shanahan for that sort of contract seems to follow suit.

That isn't inherently good or bad. Stability is good and being subject to the whims of an emotional billionaire can certainly lead to choppy waters. However the preference for safety over dynamic risk-taking could explain the Leafs having three years of Lamoriello generally making so-so decisions before letting Dubas take over.

Because I think that if you try to evaluate the Leafs under Shanahan here on any sort of standard that's tougher than "Did he do better than his immediate predecessors" you're probably going to come to the conclusion that he's done a decent but unspectacular job. The partial-tear down and rebuild yielded some very good pieces to build around but not fully tearing it down has left the team in kind of a quandary going forward. The consensus drafts of the multi-headed beast seem pretty underwhelming right now outside of their successes in the first round. Babcock has done a thoroughly acceptable job as a coach but it is still a team that hasn't made it out of the first round.

Now, you may say that Shanahan as President isn't directly responsible for any of the particular decisions that we may find objectionable like the Zaitsev deal or not trading JVR and that's true but as President of the team, and I think this is something Shanahan would agree with, it is ultimately pretty fair to say that he's responsible for the team's performance. He's been given very good resources and autonomy, it's his job to make the most of it.

And, like I said, I think he's done a solid but unspectacular job. I think it's the kind of thing that a wonky ownership structure is bound to reward with a 6 year extension rather than make a bold and risky decision to move on.

 

[herman]

The way the Leafs do press pushes is they plan out their talking points, try to predict the obvious questions that might come up, and probably wall off some questions up front through their media team. Then they release an official statement + QA, and then do the tour with their owners' respective prime time outlets on tv/radio. It all usually gets repeated a bit, with slight variation based on who asked what question.

Mirtle's interview with Shanahan | The Athletic

What do you see when you look at the organization as a whole ? what?s the biggest challenge that?s still there? What?s the struggle that you?re battling?

The biggest challenge is like I outlined at that press conference at the end of that first year. That whole first year, there were so many times I wanted to come out (and talk to the media). At a certain point, we just decided that we were going to wait until the season ends and speak as much truth as I can and as much as I know.

I remember saying at the time ? and it?s still the truth ? the challenge is not coming up with a plan. The challenge is sticking with it. That?s not to say you don?t evolve or adapt or make changes or react. I think that it?s always, in a passionate city, it?s finding a balance between appreciating that there?s a lot of armchair general managers and knowing that that?s actually a good thing.

I don?t agree that you tune it out. I think you have to listen to your critics. Because tuning out is the wrong expression. You have to listen to your fan base and you have to listen to your critics. But then the challenge is then knowing what is useful and what is not.

I think if you say these people just are critical and I?m just not going to listen to them so my feelings aren?t going to get hurt. You know, four or five times your feelings might get hurt and the fifth time you might actually discover something that no one else is willing to tell you. To me, I think that?s the challenge in Toronto. Being in this very noisy place and maintaining a very clear vision of what you want to do.

That?s a challenge for every single one of us (with the Leafs), not just me.

 

[herman]

To comment (not sure if this is an add or not) on Nik's analysis of the situation, the front office, regardless of who has been the face, seems very content with (i.e. firmly believes in the process of) iterative improvement, but taking big swings at the right pitches (Tavares).

 

[Kin]

To comment (not sure if this is an add or not) on Nik's analysis of the situation, the front office, regardless of who has been the face, seems very content with (i.e. firmly believes in the process of) iterative improvement, but taking big swings at the right pitches (Tavares).

This is maybe a side issue but I can't help but feel that given the somewhat disappointing playoff result and current cap crunch what we're seeing the Leafs deal with this off-season is the reality that the success of "taking a big swing" at someone like Tavares isn't really determined by whether or not Tavares signs, it's whether or not the team then has the ability to put together the depth that makes the high concentration of cap dollars in their top 4 forwards a winning strategy.

 

[herman]

To comment (not sure if this is an add or not) on Nik's analysis of the situation, the front office, regardless of who has been the face, seems very content with (i.e. firmly believes in the process of) iterative improvement, but taking big swings at the right pitches (Tavares).

This is maybe a side issue but I can't help but feel that given the somewhat disappointing playoff result and current cap crunch what we're seeing the Leafs deal with this off-season is the reality that the success of "taking a big swing" at someone like Tavares isn't really determined by whether or not Tavares signs, it's whether or not the team then has the ability to put together the depth that makes the high concentration of cap dollars in their top 4 forwards a winning strategy.

I think pouring a crap ton of resources into development (AHL/ECHL/consultants) and drafting and overseas free agents is the right process to plumb for efficient depth. No room for the old middle class though (JvR, Bozak, Gardiner, eventually Kapanen, Johnsson, Kadri, even Rielly and Andersen).

 

[Kin]

I think pouring a crap ton of resources into development (AHL/ECHL/consultants) and drafting and overseas free agents is the right process to plumb for efficient depth. No room for the old middle class though (JvR, Bozak, Gardiner, eventually Kapanen, Johnsson, Kadri, even Rielly and Andersen).

Sure, although at that point what falls on a GM is what they do with those resources, what development methods they invest in, how good they are in translating information(especially if it's competing, contradictory information) into actual decisions/strategies and getting organization-wide buy-in but yeah. That's about as good as you can get in terms of trying to tilt the chaos in your favour.

But it is still a results based league and at some point just having the right process isn't enough of a leg to stand on. I'd be the first to admit it's not necessarily fair that so much of what a team might be evaluated on is whether or not they strike it rich with a Kucherov or Aho or Karlsson but that's why Shanahan and crew are making the big bucks.

 

[herman]

Sure, although at that point what falls on a GM is what they do with those resources, what development methods they invest in, how good they are in translating information(especially if it's competing, contradictory information) into actual decisions/strategies and getting organization-wide buy-in but yeah. That's about as good as you can get in terms of trying to tilt the chaos in your favour.

Yeah. So far, it looks like it has worked in the AHL (where it's been implemented with buy-in longer, but also the requirement is not as high and competition has far wider gaps). I'm interested to see how they leverage the new player tracking data. Like you said, it comes down to which decisions and strategies they pick and how well they implement up and down the organization. AND THEN puck/pick luck.

 

[Kin]

Yeah. So far, it looks like it has worked in the AHL (where it's been implemented with buy-in longer, but also the requirement is not as high and competition has far wider gaps).

If I could use a distilling analogy, that'd be like saying a particular whiskey maker has perfected the art of making a fine barley mash. I genuinely don't give a crap about that as a drinker of their whiskey.

I appreciate that we are perhaps a slight measure above your average fan in our interest and why we're inclined to look towards the farm team so as to be more informed about potential players as a hobby but we're still consumers of the end product(although some people do go to Marlies games and I'm happy for them that they're getting to see a good AHL team). There are guys from those draft rounds that are currently contributing in the NHL who the Leafs could have drafted and didn't.

I think I'm pretty fair in giving credit when it's due but I really don't have any interest in running a tab for these guys. The second their draft record is producing real results for the club, I'll be first in line to say so.

 

[Highlander]

Yes when we see Johnsson and perhaps Engvall (who I think can make the jump) as 7th rounders, to have two on one team at the same time is a bit of a dream come true.
Scott drafted in 4th round, didn't realize he is 6'4" (and always will be)
Moore not drafted but sure to be a big part of this team going forward.

Once the D starts to catch up with the O, just saying

 

[Guilt Trip]

Yes when we see Johnsson and perhaps Engvall (who I think can make the jump) as 7th rounders, to have two on one team at the same time is a bit of a dream come true.
Scott drafted in 4th round, didn't realize he is 6'4" (and always will be)
Moore not drafted but sure to be a big part of this team going forward.

Once the D starts to catch up with the O, just saying

And I don't think the D is that far away honestly. I think we'll be in for a bit of a shock come opening night next season. I can see a lot of change in the bottom 6. I really think Marchment, Engvall will be on our 3rd/4th lines. Marchment wasn't drafted either. Throw in Mikheyev, Rosen, Moore, Borgman and to a lesser extent next season in Duszak. All of these guys could potentially be on the Leafs and none were drafted. Even tho Kivihelme was drafted by Nashville, he is also in the group of found wallet. To lesser extents you have Timashov(5th round), Brooks(4th round), Lindgren(4th round), Hollowell(4th round) and Scott(4th round) who could be with the big club one day. Some maybe longshots but are good prospects considering where they were drafted.